I don't think Mairéad Farrell ever actually killed anyone so I don’t think this is a Murder Commereration, but as I stated in the previous blog, I actually don't think that Sinn Féin should be remembering Mairéad Farrell in a mixed environment, but Unionist should remember this, next time they want to honour one of their own. I wonder will they be singing from the same hymn sheet come the 11th of November.

Maybe it would be better to remember Enniskillen on 11th November.
Farrell would, presumably, have been quite happy with that "operation".
I can see that link that you are trying to create, Seamus, but these are two very different issues to most people.

Um, I don't see how you can think Mairéad Farrell would be happy over the Enniskillen bombing. Most republicans are actually quite disgusted at the Enniskillen bombing. In my opinion it was the second worst atrocity of the Troubles, behind Milltown.

I believe that, instead of remembering Enniskillen on the 11th of November, they should remember all the deaths of the Troubles, regardless of cause or political affiliation, on a seperate day.

I personally see no difference between republicans remembering our volunteers to the British remembering their soldiers.

"I personally see no difference between republicans remembering our volunteers to the British remembering their soldiers."

... and therein lies the problem. The two were not, are not, and never will be, equivalent.

In your opinion Beano. It is all about opinion. The government in the North can not take the view of only one community. The majority of Nationalists do not commemorate the British Army on 11th November.

Mairead Farrell was attempting to carry out an attack not dissimilar to the Enniskillen bombing so I assume she would have had no problem with it.
As for most republicans being disgusted - I think the fact that their extremist bigotry was shown up to their American supporters was the main problem they had - not that they murdered so many innocent people.

Um, how was it similar to the Enniskillen bombing?

Trying to blow up a band performance and taking out anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time compared to blowing up a remembrance service and taking out anyone unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Pretty similar - especially if you're one of the unfortunate ones.

Um, personally, I think the targeting of a military band to be a legitimate target. Gibraltar was a legitimate target. Enniskillen shouldn't have happened. In my opinion, your description of how the two were similar actually lessings the difficulty with Enniskillen.

"Um, personally, I think the targeting of a military band to be a legitimate target. Gibraltar was a legitimate target. Enniskillen shouldn't have happened. In my opinion, your description of how the two were similar actually lessings the difficulty with Enniskillen."

You are utter scum.

How? The major difficulty I have with Enniskillen is that it attacked people in mourning, people remembering lost loved ones. Gibraltar was no such thing. It was a military band and thus were members of the British army, thus were legitimate targets. Enniskillen, was an attack on people in mourning and thus should not of happened.

Also, petty name calling Chekov, is pointless. How will I ever live with myself, than a fellow the I have never meet thinks I am scum, just because I hold a certain POV that he disagrees with?

It is a bare statement of fact. People who supported militant republicanism are scum and we should not forget it. SF may be involved in the Assembly but no unionist should ever let them forget that they are not acceptable people nor will they ever be. Saying that an army band were a legitimate target is not an argument, it is not an acceptable point of view. It is purely and simply an outrageous statement that makes you the lowest form of scum.

We need to stop pretending that people like this are entitled to express these opinions like they were saying nothing remarkable. These people are the lowest form of pondlife.

Seems to be edging close to Fascism on your part Chekov. The IRA might not have been needed if it wasn't for people like yourself trying to dominate the Irish Nationalist population of the North.

In my opinion saying members of the British Army were legitimate targets is an acceptable statement. In the opinion of a very large amount of people it is an acceptable statement. Your problem Chekov is that we will no longer be silenced by Fascist like yourself, we will put our point of view forward and petty name calling by yourself is completely pointless. Argue the case against the IRA and republicanism, but resorting to childless names calling just makes you look like an eejit.

"Argue the case against the IRA and republicanism"

There's little point in arguing with someone whose mind is closed.

"a very large amount of people it is an acceptable statement"

Frankly I have difficulty believing that there wouldn't be a larger amount of people who think Chekov's statement is the more acceptable.

It doesn't matter what the majority of people think, as I think it would come down to a simple sectarian head count, like many of the majority decisions made in the North. Chekov doesn't like that someone holds a drastically different political opinion than him so he is relying on childish name calling.

For him to argue that the IRA were scum, and all people who support the IRA or supported the IRA are scum, would be like me saying anyone who supported the British Army, or helped the RUC etc etc are scum. Or that anyone who supported the continuing British presence in Ireland is scum.

"For him to argue that the IRA were scum, and all people who support the IRA or supported the IRA are scum, would be like me saying anyone who supported the British Army, or helped the RUC etc etc are scum."

You've got to stop comparing apples and oranges some day. In fact from now on when you say x about the IRA = x about the RUC/army, I'm not even going to answer, because wilful misrepresentation and/or self-deception on that grand a scale doesn't warrant a response.

The only thing is Beano, that the very people that this thread is about, (the very people that the delightful Chekov described as scum), wouldn't consider the two to be all that massively different. It would in the mind of most Republicans, as comparing an Orange, to say a Tangerine, as in slightly different but generally enough the same thing.

I personally didn't want to get drawn into this I like the Provos/I hate the Provos argument, because (as you so accused me of earlier) we are all close minded on it. You take the most open minded Republican in the North, and the most open minded Unionist in the North and neither are going to budge on this issue, thus it is pointless arguing about it. As I pointed out at the top of the thread, I and Republicans in general "see no difference between republicans remembering our volunteers to the British remembering their soldiers". Just because you Beano, and I would imagine the majority of Unionists, see a difference shouldn't mean that Republicans should be dictated to on this issue.

And getting back to the original point, I think that if Republicans can't remember their fallen in the Long Gallery then, in the spirit of a shared space, the Unionist shouldn't be allowed to remember their fallen in the Long Gallery.

'And getting back to the original point, I think that if Republicans can't remember their fallen in the Long Gallery then, in the spirit of a shared space, the Unionist shouldn't be allowed to remember their fallen in the Long Gallery.'

Methinks that once again Seamus you are confusing Unionism with Loyalism. Unlike Sinn Fein neither the DUP or the UUP (the 2 largest Unionist parties) have 'military' wings or private armies. Therefore, i fail to understand what your point is here? Which 'fallen' would Unionists be remebering (along similar lines as Farrell)?
I suspect that had Dawn Purvis suggested that a commemoration for a dead UVF bomber be held in the Long Gallery then the response from Unionism would have been exactly the same. Both are equally unacceptable.

I would imagine their fallen would be British soldiers, police officers, members of the UDR etc etc.

I think you'll find, Seamus, that Police Officers and members of the armed forces come from ALL sides of the community and not just those who vote for a Unionist party (as you well know).
Therefore you're arguement has no basis.
The Unionist community has rejected Loyalist terrorists en masse (apart for the VERY few who vote PUP).
It's a shame that the Republican community has not behaved in a similar manner.

"I would imagine their fallen would be British soldiers, police officers, members of the UDR etc etc"

& the CATHOLICS/Protestants from NORTH, SOUTH, EAST & WEST that died in the great wars.........Thats the thing "ALL" are remembered equally for their sacrifice. Unfortunatly the Catholics were shunned by their own when(or if), they came home from the front.....traitors serving the british crown! driven out of their community!
That same Catholic community of today has shown it's true colours by giving PIRA/SINN FEIN their record vote.
Seems to me the Catholic population agreed with & supported the "armed struggle", the "Fight for freedom" & would do so again, eh?
Shame on you all!
Just an opinion like.

How is it a bad thing not to honour the fallen of a FOREIGN COUNTRY. Whether you like it or not, this is not Britain.

And another thing. It is not about fucking religion. I don't remember the British dead because their all Protestant, because there not all Protestant. I don't remember them because they died for Britain, not for Ireland. Protestants, like Theobald Wolfe Tone died for Ireland. How many of you are going to wear Easter Lilies?

"How many of you are going to wear Easter Lilies?"

LOL.

"their all Protestant, because there not all Protestant. I don't remember them because they"

Third time lucky.

"The IRA might not have been needed if it wasn't for people like yourself trying to dominate the Irish Nationalist population of the North."

The Irish nationalist population of 'the North' never accepted that the IRA were needed! Check the voting figures of SF before they gave up violence.

"In my opinion saying members of the British Army were legitimate targets is an acceptable statement. In the opinion of a very large amount of people it is an acceptable statement."

The vast majority of nationalists disagreed with you. It is your views that are unacceptable, not those of the vast majority of nationalists.

Just because a large amount of people disagree with my views does not mean that they are unacceptable. I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with my views but I do have a problem Chekov with people using childish name calling and calling people scum just because they disagree with them.

"The Irish nationalist population of 'the North' never accepted that the IRA were needed! Check the voting figures of SF before they gave up violence."

The majority of Irish nationalists in the North didn't vote for Sinn Féin until 2001, but that doesn't automatically mean that they were for or against the war. Some people who voted SDLP may have been for the war, while some people who voted SF might have been against the war. You can never tell these things, especially as not every Irish nationalist voted.

Seamus. Obviously you're a quite limited chap and I should make allowances for you. Let me walk you through this slowly. It is not about childish name calling. You expressed the opinion that it was acceptable to kill innocent people who were merely doing their job, in the furtherance of a "war" which a tiny minority on this island accepted the necessity for. Who you are and what you are does not concern me, but these views identify you as the lowest form of scum. If someone argues that the Holocaust was justified we do not indulge them and listen to their opinion as if it is as valid as anyone else's. It is not a matter of simply diagreeing with your politics or political analysis. Your endorsement of violence takes you beyond the realm of rational political debate. The IRA did not respect the views of the majority on this island when they were carrying out their campaign of terror. The IRA enforced their views through violence without those views enjoying a democratic mandate. Your views do not justify respect.

Of course the fact that you can't even express them in grammatical sentences is in itself a strong incentive simply to disregard them in any case.

"The majority of Irish nationalists in the North didn't vote for Sinn Féin until 2001, but that doesn't automatically mean that they were for or against the war. Some people who voted SDLP may have been for the war, while some people who voted SF might have been against the war. You can never tell these things, especially as not every Irish nationalist voted."

Don't be so preposterous. The majority of the nationalist electorate explicitly rejected IRA violence at the ballot box. The fact that SF gained support after 2001 only exemplifies the fact that nationalists previously would not vote for them because they endorsed violence.

"Of course the fact that you can't even express them in grammatical sentences is in itself a strong incentive simply to disregard them in any case."

Don't even know where you got that bit, so I'll just disregard it.

"The majority of the nationalist electorate explicitly rejected IRA violence at the ballot box."

Actually, in 1983, the very height of the Troubles, and the first time Sinn Féin contested elections, the SDLP only received about 40% of the Nationalist vote in Northern Ireland. [Sinn Féin received about 30%]. Not exactly an explicit rejection of the IRA, Chekov. If two thirds of the people who didn't vote supported the IRA then that would be a majority. We don't know what those thirty percent believed, so stop making up facts Chekov. But then again, you do strike me as being selective with your opinions. Comparing support for the IRA with supporting the Holocaust just underlines your own hatred and bigotry.

Obviously you're a quite limited chap and I should make allowances for you. Let me walk you through this slowly. Supporting the Holocaust is anti-semetic. You hate people because of their religion. I am not like that. I support the IRA because I believed in fighting for Irish freedom, not because of a hatred of Protestants.

"You expressed the opinion that it was acceptable to kill innocent people who were merely doing their job"

The British Army and the RUC were far from innocent Chekov. If you would take of your red, white and blue tinted glasses for a while you would actually realise that. They knew the fucking risk when they took their job.

“Don't even know where you got that bit, so I'll just disregard it.”

Maybe you shouldn’t be so hasty. Maybe you should make an attempt to learn the difference between ‘their’, ‘they’re’ and ‘there’ to begin with.

“the SDLP only received about 40% of the Nationalist vote in Northern Ireland. [Sinn Féin received about 30%]. Not exactly an explicit rejection of the IRA, Chekov.”

Yes, it is an explicit rejection of the IRA, whichever way you spin it. A majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland opposed the methods of the IRA, even in the highly charged atmosphere following the hunger strikes. Supposing support from those who could not even be bothered to go to a ballot box and register that support is a ridiculous argument. Even when a substantial body of people voted for Sinn Fein to register a protest vote in 1983, there was still a large majority of nationalist voters who favoured constitutional nationalism.

“Comparing support for the IRA with supporting the Holocaust just underlines your own hatred and bigotry.”

Supporting the Holocaust was indefensible. Supporting an IRA murder campaign was indefensible. The difference is a matter of scale.

“Supporting the Holocaust is anti-semetic. You hate people because of their religion. I am not like that. I support the IRA because I believed in fighting for Irish freedom, not because of a hatred of Protestants.”

The IRA conducted a sectarian murder campaign. The IRA conducted a campaign that was aimed to a large extent against their protestant neighbours. Do you really have to be walked through a list of their atrocities step by step? And the word is ‘anti-Semitic’.

“The British Army and the RUC were far from innocent Chekov. If you would take of your red, white and blue tinted glasses for a while you would actually realise that. They knew the fucking risk when they took their job.”

Ah right. So these young men and women, who took up a job in the British armed forces, knew prior to taking the job that they might be abducted and killed whilst off duty in Belfast. Members of a civilian police force who attempted to keep order in a society being pulled apart by murder gangs were entitled to be blown up by car bombs affixed as they lay sleeping in their houses. I don’t intend to become engaged in this particular debate, because any reasonable person can see that the IRA’s sectarian murder campaign was unjustifiable. The cowardly nature of that campaign speaks for itself. That is rather the point that I am making.

“A majority of nationalists in Northern Ireland opposed the methods of the IRA”

40% of the Nationalist population inexplicitly opposed the IRA. There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that voting for the SDLP meant voting against the IRA. My father supported the armed struggle but voted for Joe Hendron in every election that Doc Joe stood in, because he personally preferred Joe Hendron to Gerry Adams. So there is at least one of the SDLP supporters, and he probably wasn’t alone in that.

Also, as you tried to give me an English lesson, let me give you a maths lesson. 40% is less than half. I am not assuming that the 30% who didn’t vote would have supported Sinn Féin. You are assuming that the 30% who didn’t vote would have been opposed to the IRA. So less than half the nationalist electorate inexplicitly opposed the IRA “whichever way you spin it”.

“Supporting the Holocaust was indefensible. Supporting an IRA murder campaign was indefensible. The difference is a matter of scale.”

Supporting the Holocaust was indefensible. Supporting the British Army’s actions [such as Bloody Sunday, Falls Road Curfew, Internment etc, etc] was indefensible. The difference is a matter of scale.

“Members of a civilian police force who attempted to keep order in a society”

Are you really that fucking naive.

Sorry Seamus but you're playing Semantics. Whatever way you try and spin it, only 30% of (less than half) the electorate supported Sinn Fein. Whether the other 70% opposed or refused/declined to support is a minor detail.

Nothing else you've said even warrants a reply, it's just the same Sinner rhetoric. There is none so blind as he who will not see. I think you'd find yourself well at home at Slugger O'Toole. Plenty of other kids there who seem to enjoy deluding themselves to justify their hatred.

Its not about hatred Beano. The only person showing their hatred is Chekov, with is intentionally provoking remarks.

I never once said that Sinn Féin had the support of a majority of the electorate. Chekov said that the SDLP had the support of the majority of the Nationalist electorate, something I pointed out was the biggest load of crap.

I wasn't the person that tried to drag this debate through. One side will have their opinion, while another side will have theirs. The slander spewing from Chekov isn't going to make Irish Republicans change their views, just because some bigot thinks they are scum.

Sticking to the matter that the blog is about, I believe that either everything is giving a free reign in Stormont, or nothing controversial should happen. What is wrong with that?

Well Seamus seems to me you are as biggoted & sectarian as anyone you point the finger at....like it or not!
back to topic, nobody would have the brass neck to have a party for murderers or terrorists at stormount except IRA SINN FEIN. Come on how can anybody deem that acceptable?
Not that it would ever ever ever happen but imagine the uproar if loyalists enquired about a function to celebrate the live's or the great works off, say for instance the shankill butchers? the greysteele gunmen?
one lot are "freedom fighters" the other "defenders of ulster", both tarred with the same brush but what would your reaction be to this scenario?
I guess it would be the same as any right thinking person.

Seems to just be a rant on your part McV. You didn't answer my question. Should anything controversial be allowed in Stormont? Yes or no.

NO!
There's plenty of places or venues for loyalists/republicans to remember their irish or ulster volunteers.........not in Gov buildings.
people want local issues tackled, health/education etc in these places not f@cking parties gloryfying dead bombers!
I'm sure that's the opinion from both sides.

"Supporting the British Army’s actions [such as Bloody Sunday, Falls Road Curfew, Internment etc, etc] was indefensible. The difference is a matter of scale."

On the contrary, all those actions are capable of rational defence. None were sectarian or aggressive in their intent.

"Are you really that fucking naive."

Are you really so stupid as to believe that the vast majority of RUC members did not join in order to perform policing tasks to the best of their ability? Are you aware that a large proportion of the present PSNI were previously in the RUC? Have they undergone some sort of transformation and now wish to uphold law whereas previously they didn't?

"Should anything controversial be allowed in Stormont?"

It's a good theory, but the problem with banning anything controversial is who decides what is controversial? It leaves the doors open to Sinn Fein to deem anything and everything they don't agree with as offensive (see also: Limavady). Likewise the DUP I suppose (that mutual veto's a bitch), if an Irish language group wanted to organise something, for example.

That is the problem I have. You either have to allow everything or ban everything to make sure that you don't offend anyone. That is the thing about Power Sharing. Either everyone agrees with it or it shouldn't or won't happen.

"On the contrary, all those actions are capable of rational defence. None were sectarian or aggressive in their intent."

Bollocks Chekov. The British Army decided very quickly that they couldn't defeat both Republicans and Loyalists, so they picked the community that posed the biggest threat to them. And to deem Internment, the putting of innocent people, based solely on their religion, into concentration camps, is rational defence. And to think, you accused me of being a Holocaust supporter.

"Are you really so stupid as to believe that the vast majority of RUC members did not join in order to perform policing tasks to the best of their ability? Are you aware that a large proportion of the present PSNI were previously in the RUC? Have they undergone some sort of transformation and now wish to uphold law whereas previously they didn't?"

No there are now rules in place to stop that all from happening. And I will admit that the RUC membership of the late 90s wasn't as sectarian as the RUC of the late 60s and early 70s.

"NO!
There's plenty of places or venues for loyalists/republicans to remember their irish or ulster volunteers.........not in Gov buildings.
people want local issues tackled, health/education etc in these places not f@cking parties gloryfying dead bombers!
I'm sure that's the opinion from both sides."

That probably is the opinion of both sides. But the problem McV is that a lot of republicans would add the RUC and British army to that equation and feel that there are plenty of areas to remember them, not in Government Buildings.

"concentration camps"

Melodramatic much?

"the putting of innocent people, based solely on their religion,"

That's not quite true either.

Anyway, I think the point is that as an idea (if we can ignore the fact that the actual implementation in NI was f**king woefully bad), the decision to implement internment as a tactic is rationally defensible, (whether or not it was justified and/or appropriate in the context of NI is a separate debate). The same really can't be said of blowing up innocent civilians in hotels or at remembrance services - no matter how much some people might try to equivocate.

"a lot of republicans would add the RUC and British army to that equation"

And thank you for proving my point. It's not quite Limavadyesque, but you get the idea.

I have never tried to justify the blowing up of innocent civilians. I have already stated that fact. The blowing up of military targets is rational defence to use Chekov's phrase.

Whether you like it or not, to imprison people without trial, without charge and without crime for years is morally indefensible. The whole religion thing is the fact that the firm majority of the people locked up didn't go in as IRA members [they may have come out as IRA members, but didn't go in]. The British Army selected individuals, and the sole reason they didn't it was because they were Catholic. They whole believe is that if you lock up every Catholic in Northern Ireland, you'll have locked up the majority of the IRA.

And to use your question Beano, who gets to decided what is controversial? If the 2nd largest party is Stormont consider the honouring of British Soldiers at Stormont controversial, then you can imagine that a large section of the population do. I have always said that in relation to Limavady and to the Mairéad Farrell incident in Stormont, it should be either Equality or Neutrality. Either all, or none. I would personally prefer Equality, but Unionists don't want that, so it should be Neutrality.

"Bollocks Chekov. The British Army decided very quickly that they couldn't defeat both Republicans and Loyalists, so they picked the community that posed the biggest threat to them. And to deem Internment, the putting of innocent people, based solely on their religion, into concentration camps, is rational defence."

Internment was not based on religion. Internment was based on outdated and faulty information certainly but to attempt to lock up people involved in violent terrorist activity is certainly rational defence. If those people came from one community that was simply because the terror gangs also largely came from that community and that community was providing support and cover for those gangs.

"And to think, you accused me of being a Holocaust supporter."

No I didn't. I did not at any point imply that you supported the Holocaust.

"No there are now rules in place to stop that all from happening. And I will admit that the RUC membership of the late 90s wasn't as sectarian as the RUC of the late 60s and early 70s."

That makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the point I made. Let's try again. Were the majority of members of the RUC in the 60s and 70s people who were trying to do their job as part of a civilian police force or were they in the force to attack Catholics?

They were in their jobs to protect the State, and the majority of the RUC at the time considered Catholics a threat to the state. So the massivelly descriminated and attacked Catholics.

"the majority of the RUC"

Citation needed.

"So the [sic] massivelly [sic] descriminated [sic] and attacked Catholics."

Even the Catholic ones?

Methinks you're doing what I did with Strabane and tarring a group with a brush that should be reserved for individuals that acted outside their remit as police officers.

Anyway I think this brings us back to my point. If we ban everything SF and/or the DUP deem controversial (does it take a whole party or just one MLA?) there'll be nothing left at Stormont. Should we ban Elton John because his sexuality offends the more fundy DUPers too? The fact is a line has to be drawn somewhere and celebrating the lives of murderers is way on the wrong side of it.

But it comes down to, who draws that line, and what side is the British Army and the RUC on?

Which brings me back to "the problem with banning anything controversial is who decides what is controversial?" Finally I think we agree on something.

I've no idea who could be trusted to draw the line. One thing I know is that I wouldn't trust the DUP or Sinn Fein not to abuse this power if it were given to them (just look how they've used their vetoes as bargaining chips so far - "You don't get x unless we get y").

I'll have a crack at it. I accept it could be construed as provocative if events honouring the RUC or army as an organisation were to be planned, but if an event was to be held for an individual who was in either of the above I don't think it would be appropriate to ban or oppose it just because of their occupation. I don't want to get too focused on individual cases but if I give you an example of Sgt Willets to illustrate what I mean I hope it gets my point across.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem. But would people in the Unionist community mind the remembrance of Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh, an IRA volunteer, who died trying to protect innocent people from Michael Stone? I think certain people [cough Chekov] would be highly against that sort of remembrance, due to Caoimhin Mac Bradaigh being a member of the IRA.